If not for decades of Western - especially the United States' - racism and bigotry, legitimate elected governments would today decide and execute policy not only in Egypt, but probably also in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and other countries whose governments are today effectively Western colonies in the Middle East.

This blog examines the damage being done to hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East by that racism and bigotry.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

The Prime Minister's Office released a statement Thursday rejecting the claims. According to the statement, Netanyahu told the foreign affairs committee of the Dutch parliament during a visit to the Netherlands that he never called the two newspapers enemies of Israel, and that it was in fact Iran and its extensions that were the country's greatest adversaries.

One might wonder why Saudi Arabia, which has much more oil revenue than Iran, spends more than twice as much on weapons as Iran and Israel combined and has a population even more vehemently anti-Zionist than Iran's is not a greater threat to Israel - according to the official position of Israel's Prime Minister - than Iran.

Few analysts believe Riyadh, the world's top oil exporter and a key ally for the United States, is likely to embark upon a weapons programme in defiance of U.S. calls for restraint.

The same can be said for other effective US colonies such as Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, UAE and others. Would Israel as an enforced Jewish majority state be viable if the US was not able to direct the foreign policies of these states on Israel's behalf?

One thing we can say that it is at very least questionable that Israel could survive in the region if Saudi Arabia and the other effective US colonies in the region, were, like Iran, independent enough to pursue foreign policies reflective of the views and values of their people.

The second thing we can say is that popular control of foreign policy for non-Jews in Israel's region is a chance Barack Obama, Juan Cole, MJ Rosenberg, Jimmy Carter and other supporters of effective US colonialism on Israel's behalf are not willing to take. Some of these supporters of pro-Israel effective colonialism are more honest in their opposition to popular control of policy by people who are not Jewish in Israel's region than others.

73 comments:

"Iran and Israel combined and has a population even more vehemently anti-Zionist than Iran's is not a greater threat to Israel - according to the official position of Israel's Prime Minister - than Iran."

I explained it to you before, its because those in charge do not see it in their interests to engage in certain policies which israel gets into a huff about.

"Oh yes, Saudi Arabia still has a subject colonial-style dictatorship"

Its certainly an oppressive country but it is not a colony, it is a nation which acts in its overall interests.

"and is more accountable to its patron the United States than to the people of its country."

The problem with that argument is that saudi arabia has done things in defiance of the us, again when the rulers felt it was in saudi arabias influence. Also you seem to be implying that the saudi people want a weapons programme whereas the us does not want this, but where is the evidence that the majority of saudis want a weapons programme?

"The same can be said for other effective US colonies such as Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, UAE and others."

These nations arent colonies of the us.

"Would Israel as an enforced Jewish majority state be viable if the US was not able to direct the foreign policies of these states on Israel's behalf? "

This piece is flawed for many reasons, one the us does not control their foreign policies, secondly as we saw in the past israel is viable even when it relations with the surrounding states is extremily hostile.

"One thing we can say that it is at very least questionable that Israel could survive in the region if Saudi Arabia and the other effective US colonies in the region, were, like Iran, independent enough to pursue foreign policies reflective of the views and values of their people"

Iran is actually amoung the few countries in the region which has not directly gone to war with israel and sometimes even worked with israel. Also its a mistake to think those in charge of iran are following the will of the people, they are engaged in certain policies for they wish to do it themselves.

Also lets say if every other nation did behave exactly like iran and attempted to start a nuclear programme, why would this affect israels existence? All the available evidence suggests that the programme its of a non-military nature.

One more time DM has a peculiar way to say some things without ANY proof.1) Saudis rule "not a colony", but they act as USA (and Zionists) agents in the ME. They helped USA to stage a mass gathering of armed Islamist fanatics from all over the world in Afghanistan, for ex. 2) Saudi rulers also do not answer to their population, even more so than Assad. They practice far more oppressive form of Islamism than Iran. But, somehow, USA "democracy" has no problem with the fanatical misogynist regime, marred by terror connections and attacking its neighbors (Yemen, for ex.) Of course, Saudis do it with "permission" from other unelected dictators, so it is OK for DM. 3) So, if Obama or Bush have no problems with Saudis, so do DM. After all, if Saudis do not want to behold their population animosity for Zionism, who is DM to criticize them :( DM is busy asking questions like "if every other nation did behave exactly like iran and attempted to start a nuclear programme, why would this affect israels existence?" Israel general was quite franc about it - nuclear "possibility" of Iran could be a bother to Zionsits if they were to one more time bomb their neighbors. The same is sure true regarding every other big state not being a lackey of USA and Zionists.

Iran does more to make Netanyahu consider it a threat than having a nuclear program.

Saudi Arabia could do far more than Iran could, but does not. That is not because the people of the country are more supportive of Israel, it is because their government is accountable to parties that are supportive of Israel instead of to domestic constituents.

The overall interest of a client regime is to do what its patron instructs it to do. But effectively that client regime is a colony.

Also, polls are available, you can put "Iran Poll" into the search bar to the right and see that Iran's anti-Israel policies, which Saudi Arabia does not pursue, are overwhelmingly popular and everywhere they've been polled.

Polls of Saudi Arabia's population tend not to be taken by Western organizations but polls of Arab populations when they are taken support the conclusion that if guided by the populations, policies advocated by the population of the country in Saudi Arabia would look more like Iran's than like its current policies.

Lastly, the US doesn't have to exert the effort it does ensuring that populists don't gain control of foreign policy in the US' effective colonies of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and others. Somebody in the US State Department thinks you're wrong.

Saudis financed Iraq's war on Iran in 1980, one year Iran deposed Shah, which US permitted and then supported to punish Iran for failing to toe the US line, AND to remain US buffer against Russia.

Iraq refused to come to the table to make an end to the war. Giandomenico Picco, who negotiated the truce ending the Iraq-Iran war, had to deal with a third party, in the absence of an Iraqi representative. Picco chose Saudi bankers to stand in for Iraq.

It should be noted that shortly thereafter, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was motivated by Iraq's financial crisis -- Saudis and other Arab states refused to help Iraq out of its $70billion war debt, but instead lowered the price of oil, which further constrained Iraq's economy. Especially furious at Kuwaiti arrogance as well as fact that Kuwait was laterally tapping Iraqi oil, Saddam invaded Kuwait.

You know Moloney, this brings up a somewhat interesting point. Leaders, officials and supporters of Israel almost constantly discuss threats to Israel. I've never once seen Saudi Arabia on the list.

Can you provide a link to anyone, ever, describing Saudi Arabia as any kind of threat to Israel? Specifically Saudi Arabia. Not Arabs in general and not a theoretical country post pro-US stooge monarchy where Saudi Arabia is today.

I honestly don't think I've ever seen that in my life, so if you provide a link, it'll be my first time.

"One more time DM has a peculiar way to say some things without ANY proof."Not true (just as it was not true beforehand), near the end of bushes reign he asked the saudis to lower oil prices, because it was not in their interest they didnt do it.

"but they act as USA (and Zionists) agents in the ME."

They simply dont, they overall do what they want and overall have very poor relations with israel and zionism in general, thinking otherwise shows one is not very informaed about the matter.

"They helped USA to stage a mass gathering of armed Islamist fanatics from all over the world in Afghanistan, for ex."

Yes, because they wished to do so themselves.

"Saudi rulers also do not answer to their population, even more so than Assad. "

Once more you are trying to make assad look better than he is ( odd for someone who claims to dislike oppression)

The truth is assads government does have a worse level of press freedom and its political freedom is as bad as suadi arabias, not better.

"Of course, Saudis do it with "permission" from other unelected dictators, so it is OK for DM. "

Once again you are making things up off the top of your head, when did i ever say i approved of its interventions?

"So, if Obama or Bush have no problems with Saudis, so do DM. "

They probably do for the state department often criticises their human rights record. Also if they didnt why would it then mean that i dont, again you are constructing a straw man to argue against.

"After all, if Saudis do not want to behold their population animosity for Zionism "

They do.

""if every other nation did behave exactly like iran and attempted to start a nuclear programme, why would this affect israels existence?""

Its a valid question, the answer would really be that it wouldnt affect israels existence at all.

A wikileaks cable had israeli officials write that saudi arabia "has a long record of hostility against Israel, supporting terror, participating in most of the Arab-Israeli wars, avoiding contacts with Israel and opposing rapprochement between Israel and the Gulf Arab states."

"Saudi Arabia could do far more than Iran could, but does not. That is not because the people of the country are more supportive of Israel, it is because their government is accountable to parties that are supportive of Israel instead of to domestic constituents."Saudi arabias record of relations with israel is arguably worse than irans, saudi arabia has actually been part of coalitions which has lunched direct wars on israel. It also has terrible economic and diplomatic relations with israel.What is it exactly that you believe the saudi people want in regards to israel that their government is not delivering on?"The overall interest of a client regime is to do what its patron instructs it to do. But effectively that client regime is a colony. "Therefore saudi arabia is not a colony for it does what it wishes, such as when it declined bushes suggestions. That and most obviously they are no us colonists there."see that Iran's anti-Israel policies, which Saudi Arabia does not pursue, "

Again Saudi arabia does have positions that are negative towards israel.

" but polls of Arab populations when they are taken support the conclusion that if guided by the populations, policies advocated by the population of the country in Saudi Arabia would look more like Iran's than like its current policies."

Please point to the poll that that stated that the results showed that arabs want their nations to follow irans line as opposed to saudi arabia?

Polling data in reality shows that the turkish style of government is the most popular, not irans, most arabs would also like to see their leader to be like turkeys (lets recall that turkey has much better relations with israel than saudi arabia), the majority of polling data shows that the majority would prefer to see a two state solution. Polls also show that most Saudis along with most arabs support a nuclear free middle east.

To claim that most saudis would want their nations policies to be more like irans is simply far-fetched when the majority of saudis strongly disagree with irans role in the region.

DM quotation's is made of no more than USA was complained about the tiny Granada before attacking it :)

Yes, SA was and is not the best open friend of Zionists :) It even went to such length as "avoiding contacts with Israel " (not sure it is true, or maybe the Zionists are not happy with the level of contacts). Zionists even do not mention a state-sponsored Anti-Semitism of Saudis, just as they closed eyes on Sadat background, and if Saddam the Nazi lover was OK because he turned to be a 100% lackey of Zionists, it gives us a good foil to see complains against SA - SA has not signed an open deal with Zionism, but sure was not and is not a "threat". Not even as much as Granada was to USA.

"Can you provide a link to anyone, ever, describing Saudi Arabia as any kind of threat to Israel?"The link i provided showed that the to israeli officials considered sadui arabia to be a hostile threat for it in their words "supporting terror, participating in most of the Arab-Israeli wars, avoiding contacts with Israel and opposing rapprochement between Israel and the Gulf Arab states."

"DM quotation's is made of no more than USA was complained about the tiny Granada before attacking it :) "Actually the quotation is actually quite different for it is accurate, saudi arabia actually did do all the things mentioned.

"(not sure it is true, or maybe the Zionists are not happy with the level of contacts). "

The fact that you openly admitted that you are unsure shows again that you are not well informed about the matter at hand.

"Zionists even do not mention a state-sponsored Anti-Semitism of Saudis"

Actually many zionists such as Alan Alan dershowitz have been critical towards what he calls saudi arabias anti muslim apartheid. So again libia your statement isnt factually true.

"and if Saddam the Nazi lover was OK because he turned to be a 100% lackey of Zionists"

???

Israel and saddam were enemies, they both attacked one another.

"SA has not signed an open deal with Zionism, but sure was not and is not a "threat". Not even as much as Granada was to USA. "

This argument doesnt hold out when one looks at the facts, in fact its so shockingly wrong that if i didnt know better id swear this comment was said in jest. Saudi arabia but it certainly was a threat to israel, not a existentialist threat (neither is iran) but a threat nonetheless, it did provide aid to anti-israeli groups, it joined coalition based wars against israel and has a histroy of being diplomatically hostile to israel.

To suggest that the relations between two nations was never a hostile one because two completely different nations in a different part of the world were not truly hostile to one another is logically flawed and an error you should for your own sake avoid repeating.

They are USA Zionists, and even them could only speak about "potential" threat, mostly, clearly because

"An additional risk that cannot be dismissed is the possibility of a hostile, anti-western regime taking over the country" and then even more clear "

While Saudi Arabia is considered one of Washington's closest friends in the Gulf, opposition forces have been openly critical of the government and its close ties with the U.S. and the West." of course, Zionists lie about such opposition being only al_Qaida, while Al-Qaida was mabe by CIA. As a matter of fact jails of SA are full of opposition which has nothing to do with AL-Qaida , but is liberal and so on.

But still, even from the POV of the most alarmist Zionists all this adds up only to "potential" threat. Not more than in DM quotation, so, nothing real, very unlike about Iran after gaining independence from USA.

No, Saudi Arabia is a potential threat, because Saudi Arabia could potentially be replaced by a regime that is not a colonial stooge. Then it would be a threat, a big threat, a far bigger threat than Iran.

But no Israeli leader, official or supporter, that I've ever come across, has ever described Saudi Arabia as a threat.

Arnold, if something is hostile to you and takes aggressive action it is a threat to you, saudi arabia as pointed out in the link was hostile and engaged in agressive actions towards israel, getting involved in wars, funding violent anti-israeli groups.

Again arnold my link showed that israeli officials considered saudi arabia to be hostile and that due to its hostility it engaged in actions which were threatening to israels security, please dont bury your head in the sand on this issue.

That clearly isnt true for my link showed the views of israeli officials who described saudi arabia as a threat and mentioned previous actions were saudi arabia threatened israel ( little things like going to war with it).

Why would an independent Republic of Arabia (which would most likely still be a one-product economy) be more dangerous to Israel than Iran, which has real (if inefficient) industry that could provide the basis for a half-decent military-industrial complex?

My link showed that the israelis preceived saudi arabia was a hostile threat while the other link showed saudi arabia being called a threat.

Saudi arabia as i explained to you before is independent, and if it did follow the will of its people there is little reason one would see much change in regards to israel,most saudis disapprove of irans role in the region and wouldnt be likely to follow its example, most citizens are also open to the two state solution along with most arabs.

So Moloney has produced a statement by Israeli officials saying that Saudi Arabia is hostile, but that does not call Saudi Arabia a threat. Lidia has found a statement, that Maloney would like to take credit for, by the Jewish virtual library that uses the word threat in the statement: "there is minimal threat to Israel from Saudi Arabia on its own".

The question of this post still stands: One might wonder why Saudi Arabia, which has much more oil revenue than Iran, spends more than twice as much on weapons as Iran and Israel combined and has a population even more vehemently anti-Zionist than Iran's is not a greater threat to Israel - according to the official position of Israel's Prime Minister - than Iran.

To pose the question another way, why would a neighboring hostile country that spends more than 2.5 times as much on weapons as Israel be, in the words of Lidia's link that has excited Moloney so, a "minimal threat" on its own?

There is a report that in one of its wars against Israel, Saudi Arabia secretly promised the United States not to fire a single bullet.

How does one explain that in terms of a country that is hostile to Israel and independent of the US?

I hope Moloney volunteers to entertain us some more by attempting to answer these questions.

It seems that Zionists are NOT aware of DM knowledge about Iran being about as much threat as SA :) Not only Zionists call Iran a threat, they are constantly 1) threatening Iran 2) asking USA for help to harm Iran3) harming Iran by many means, including terror.

Zionists do nothing likewise regarding Saudis. Given slavish subservience by USA rulers to Zionists, it is impossible to believe that Obama or Congress are cosing with Saudi royals and selling them a ton of arms (albeit NOT the most advanced), while Zionists see SA as a threat.

I am sure, NO ONE between serious Zionists (as opposed non-serious Zionist DM) would agree that Iran is as much threat as SA. And they are right. Saudi royals do NOT lift a finger to harm Israel, even though they have money and arms. More than that, they are highly sectarian and when Zionists massacred Lebanese, Saudis sided NOT with resistance (mostly Shia, Christian and atheists), but with Zionists. On the other hand, Iran's support for anti-Zionist resistance is NOT sectarian, because Hamas are NOT Shia, but Sunni.

Now regarding Saudi (and other Zionist lackeys) anti-Semitism and reaction of Zionists to it.

Note to DM (Sadat of Egypt is NOT the same as Saddam of Iraq) :)

1) Zionists always cry "anti-Semitism" if somebody dares to speak out against Zionism. Zionists even try formally insert their definition into dictionaries 2) Iran and Hamas, for, ex, being anti-Zionists, specially point that their problem with Israel is NOT Jews, but a colonialism. They tell truth, also because traditionally Jews in the ME were part of society and often quite a prosperous part. They are seen as monotheists and thus even able from traditional Islamic POV to get to heaven without converting to Islam, on their own religious piety. But Zionist propaganda (see p.1) always call Ahmadinejad, for ex, an Anti-Semite. He is not.3) On the other hand, a deeply sectarian and intolerant kind of Islam, promoted by Saudi royals is a foe of even Shia Muslims, not mentioning all others. Still, Saudi rulers indulge in anti-Semitism in particular. I use Angry Arab sources, for ex: (there are much more, of course)

4) Zionists are not bothered by Saudi REAL anti-Semitism. DM cited the infamous scoundrel Dershowitz, but DM himself does not claim that Dershowitz attacked Saudis for anti-Semitism specially (while D is smearing a lot of anti-Zionists as anti-Semites). DM cited D attacking"saudi arabias anti muslim apartheid" So, D misuse and abuse term "aparteid" which means "having different laws for colonialist and colonized people" (see South Africa before 1994 and Israel now). Sauids and "muslims" are NOT practicing aparteid (note how D is smearing the whole religion, by the way). Saudi rulers are practicing sectarian bigotry against EVERYONE not-Wahhabi (excluding their masters the White men). So, D, who is calling Finkelstein anti-Semitic is NOT calling Saudis such. I wonder why. (Not for DM - no, I am NOT really wonder)

Here is Dershovitz attack on Finkelstein (who even agrees with so-called two-state solution, which I call "bantustan solution")

"My objection was two-fold: first, Finkelstein’s book is a self-proclaimed sequel to an earlier book that the New York Times described as “a novel variation on the anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” and which several reviewers characterized as bigoted and anti-Semitic. Finkelstein is a Holocaust revisionist who is lionized by neo-Nazis for his absurd claims that a worldwide Jewish conspiracy exists, headed by Steven Spielberg, Leon Uris, Elie Wiesel, Daniel Goldhagen and others. Almost no one—except neo-Nazis—takes him seriously. He suspects his own mother of being a kapo and cooperating with the Nazis during the Holocaust. Leon Weiseltier was correct when he characterized Finkelstein as follows: “You don’t know who Finkelstein is. He’s poison, he’s a disgusting self-hating Jew, he’s something you find under a rock.” "

I dare DM provide something likewise form Dershovitz about Saudi media, for ex. (Of course, D does not know Arabic, but it sure did not prevent him smearing Arabs and Muslims). But racism of Dershovitz does not mean he is a fighter against Saudi royals' anti-Semitism)

Now to clear it to DM one more time. SADAT (not Saddam) was an anti-Semite and Nazi-lover, but he was a lackey of Zionists and USA, so he was welcome for Zionists even to name some Zionist rubbish "institution" on stolen Palestinian land in his honor

Arnold, just to see why DM calling Saudis the same threat to Israel as Iran is not serious, one could look at the same cite about Iran treat. Not only the article is MUCH longer, the very beginning is telling

"Iran is one of America's foremost self-proclaimed enemies. Iran has become one of the most serious threats to stability in the Middle East and has developed the means to strikeIsrael."

There is a special part called "Threats Against Israel and America"

for ex.

"Iran's nonconventional weapons are not a threat only toward Israel, they also pose a danger to the United States and its interests around the world."

All usual lies about Iranian nukes notwithstanding, the very wordings of those two pieces by the same source about Iran and SA shows how different they are and thus, how different they are seem from Zionist POV. The only serious difference between Iran and SA is that Iran rulers are more or less provide the voice for their population in foreign affairs, while Saudi ones are not. That rulers of Iran are mostly elected or at least are popular while rulers of SA are selected and depend NOT on their popularity but on USA support against their population, and it could (to DM - I am joking) somehow be a reason of above-mentioned difference)

"Zionists are NOT aware of DM knowledge about Iran being about as much threat as SA :)"Am i to take it than when the israeli government now makes public claims about something you and arnold will now believe it? Odd considering how arnold has previously posted pieces showing how iran despite israels claims does not appear to be building a nuclear weapon.

The truth is that even according to the israeli intelligence sources and contrary to netanyahus threat claims irans nuclear weapon threat is not there for the iranian government has not even decided to pursue such an action.

"Zionists do nothing likewise regarding Saudis."

Actually various zionists are often critical of saudi arabia, as i pointed out before they consider it an apartheid state, they were very much against weapon sale to saudi arabia in the past and the two nations have actually been in a state of war against one another.

"would agree that Iran is as much threat as SA."

I dont know if i would go that far, again my position is basically that both nations have poor relations and that israel tends to hype threats towards it and that certain people tend to buy into it. My view is also that various zionists are perfectly aware that iran is not a major threat but are just claiming so for political reasons.

Would you really consider iran to be much of a threat? No real chance of a military war between the two and irans nuclear programme doesnt appear to be designed for weapons.

"Saudi royals do NOT lift a finger to harm Israel"

Again the saudis have actually in the past declared war on israel, they have provided funds to violent anti-israeli groups and tried to damage israels economy by cutting off relations. Also saudi arabia is working to heal the rift between hamas and fatah should would help unite Palestinians against israel.

1) Israel is claiming that Iran is a threat. They could lie WHY it is a threat, the truth being Iran as an independent state COULD be, by reason of its people being hostile to Zionism. Arnold rightly says that Zionists are afraid not as much as of actual bomb in hands of Iran, as of loss of monopoly of "possibility" of nukes in the ME. Israel wants a freedom of threaten and attack at will. Iran is a threat to THIS freedom of Israel. All else, including DM words are just words.

2) Israel is NOT claiming SA as a threat. Again, Arnold explained WHY Zionists are not afraid of SA -lackey of USA. All else - see. 1)

Now about anti-Semitism which Zionists see mostly in their foes (even if there is not any). Notorious propaganda film called

"Unmasked: Judeophobia" includes, of course, long before refuted claim that Ahmadinejad said that " Israel must be wiped off the map

", but NOT includes real examples of Saudi anti-Semitism. Dershovitz, of course, took a part in this big fat lie, but NOT in role of anti-Saudi critic. By the way, the main premise of the piece is that every time somebody does not like Israel (esp, when non-Jews do it, even though they are also not let off the hook), it is based on "irrational" hate of Jews and nothing else. On the other hand, authors admit that those "Arabs" tend to see ME reality through the lens of imperialism and so on - a very nasty habit, of course.

OK, I get it. DM claims then BOTH SA and Iran are not electing the highest rulers (I guess, does USA ? - it is a joke). So, if Iran rulers do not like USA and Israel, and Saudis are openly USA lackeys and are NOT a threat to Israel unlike Iran, it should be explained by another reason - maybe the Moon influence (a joke)

But I esp. like the mention of Turkey. Sure, relations with Israel by Turkey are getting better every day (a joke). Of course, Turkey for some time has been a democracy (notwithstanding USA being unpleased with nasty democracy getting into way of USA colonial war against Iraq). But as far as I know, so-called Western democracy usually has a very odd way about fulfillment of people's will. For ex, the majority of the USA, as far as I know, do not want to prolong war in Afghanistan quite for some time (several years, at least, just as it started turn sour for USA). The answer of democratically elected highest rulers? More war, of course. Turkey rulers, being more "Western" than Iran, sure is not as fast in turning against Israel, but it is clear, that at least doing it, they got big support from the population.

Another little detail about Turkey's "democracy" is it being for long time a hostage for military, which is not averse to coups, usually fully backed, if not worse, by USA. The military is not against Israel, so elected rulers were heavily pressed not to speak out against Israel and not move against it.

"Arnold, just to see why DM calling Saudis the same threat to Israel as Iran is not serious"Lidia your argument fails on the grounds that the source is trying to mainly argue that iran is such a threat for it is trying to get a nuke and that ahmadinenejad said he wanted to wipe israel off the map, the available evidence doesnt support this, it also goes over board with highlighted irans terror links, its kind of odd that you who seems to oppose what you term zionist rhetoric then turn around and use it as a source when you yourself dont find it reliable.

Again as i said many times before my position is that israel has poor relations with both, this is accurate.

The reason why it is necessary here is because arnold wanted to note a time when anyone said saudi arabia was a threat.

"The only serious difference between Iran and SA is that Iran rulers are more or less provide the voice for their population in foreign affairs, while Saudi ones are not."

For someone who gives out about oppressive governments who seem to be quite happy to turn around and provide some back up to those who have poor relations to those that you feel biased against.

The truth is both governments are highly oppressive and rule non-free nations, they also simply do what they wish.

"That rulers of Iran are mostly elected or at least are popular while rulers of SA are selected "

Both the king of saudi arabia and the supreme leader of iran do not have systems which would allow the people to remove them against their will.

"Note to DM (Sadat of Egypt is NOT the same as Saddam of Iraq) :) "Im aware of this, it was you who made the spelling error.

" Zionists always cry "anti-Semitism" if somebody dares to speak out against Zionism. Zionists even try formally insert their definition into dictionaries "

Depends on the zionist.

" They tell truth, also because traditionally Jews in the ME were part of society and often quite a prosperous part."

Jews overall were second class citizens.

"Saudi rulers indulge in anti-Semitism in particular. "

I dont recall claiming otherwise.

"Zionists are not bothered by Saudi REAL anti-Semitism. "

I provided an example which holds out, dershowitz is critical of saudi arabias attitude towards jews and others and calls it apartheid. To say zionists are not bothered by saudi arabias anti semitism is factually untrue.

"So, D misuse and abuse term "aparteid" which means "having different laws for colonialist and colonized people" (see South Africa before 1994 and Israel now)."

Apartheid is "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

This applies to south Africa, whether it applies to israel is debatable some like falk say yes while others like goldstone say no.

"excluding their masters the White men "

White men are not their masters.

"So, D, who is calling Finkelstein anti-Semitic is NOT calling Saudis such. I wonder why. "

D clearly does consider saudi anti-semitic, in his book the case for israel he criticised many nations in the region for their anti jew attitudes.

"Under this principle, the first country studied would be Saudi Arabia. That tyrannical kingdom practices gender apartheid to an extreme, relegating women to an extremely low status. Indeed, a prominent Saudi Imam recently issued a fatwa declaring that anyone who advocates women working alongside men or otherwise compromises with absolute gender apartheid is subject to execution. The Saudis also practice apartheid based on sexual orientation, executing and imprisoning gay and lesbian Saudis. Finally, Saudi Arabia openly practices religious apartheid. It has special roads for "Muslims only." It discriminates against Christians, refusing them the right to practice their religion openly. And needless to say, it doesn't allow Jews the right to live in Saudi Arabia, to own property or even (with limited exceptions) to enter the country. Now that's apartheid with a vengeance."

So, what about all this noise from "Greens" in Iran about how their votes were "stolen" (and all support from USA for those claims but NOT any word from USA about Saudi king, but prize for "reforms").

If elections of president of Iran mean even less as selections of crown prince in SA, why all pro-USA well-to-do Iranians aka "reformers" even bother? Sure they are not THAT stupid as DM pictures them?

Now I want to tell you a tale of Hodja Nasreddin, the great hero of folk stories in the ME and beyond.

Once he was duping a greedy owner of watering source for impoverished village in order to get water for the poor toilers. Hodja told the owner that his donkey is an enchanted prince, who should be returned to his royal father for suitable reward. The owner agreed to exchange the pond for the donkey. But it had to be done legally. How could one legally change a very precious water source in a dry country for an ass? The most sly lawyer did it. First, he demeaned the value of a pond, calling it "a pond near the garden", as if it was something unimportant. But still - an ass? So, the lawyer asked Hodja, how much was the ass's weight, named the ass "Silver", and the pond was exchanged for about 400 pounds of silver.

DM faces a task not unlike the lawyer. He needs to equate Iran and Saudi Arabia. Task impossible? Not at all for DM. Just made SA independent of USA and a threat to Israel, and Iran not at all democratic and not at all a threat (or not more than SA). DEAL! The ass of Saudis' value is the same as Iranian pond of fresh water for dry climate. (it was joke, of course).

About people who refuse and so on. Yes, as far as I know USA people did vote for Obama who promised them a lot (including closing the Guantanomo). Obama was elected as "anti-war". He did ended USA occupation of Iraq (more or less) but it was NOT his fault. He tried very hard to prolong it, but even USA is not almighty, and the wars in Afghanistan and Libya (which DM loves) just took all spare warpower. But at least the Nobel prize for peace Obama did all he might to prolong another not-so-popular (even though not with DM) war in Afghanistan and even escalated it. So, his voters got a lot for their votes, as usual in democracy (a joke).

But now it is even more funny (a joke). Almost all chaps who really could be elected are calling for war against Iran (Obama is NOT saying that he would NOT attack Iran, and do as much as he could to provoke Iran). Ron Paul is against this war, and because of it he has NO chance to even get a nomination (it is almost only difference he has with all others, including Obama). So, I suppose "people" in USA who are afraid of war against Iran should just buy a bombshelter and do not worry more (a joke, a very sad one).

"the truth being Iran as an independent state COULD be, by reason of its people being hostile to Zionism."Again the flaw with this argument is that the feeling of the people is irrelevant in iran when it comes to major decisions so this is not a factor.

"Iran is a threat to THIS freedom of Israel. All else, including DM words are just words."

Unlikely to be too significant, again iran is unlikely to make a bomb and if it did it might not be too effective. Arab nations went to actual war with israel in 73 when it had an actual bomb.

"Israel is NOT claiming SA as a threat. "

Again as explained the israelis do see sa as behaving as a hostile threat, this is shown by wikileaks. Facts also showed that relations between the two are not good.

Im afraid that you have got it the wrong way round, i am the one calling things as the available evidence presents them, you are the one seeing things as you wish to see them for reasons of bias.

SA is an independent nation and it does have poor relations with israel.

I said that the iranian people dont have the ability to remove the supreme leader if he doesnt wish to be removed under the current political system and that it is an oppressive state with poor press freedom.

In the whole internet, the only place you've shown us of an Israeli leader, official or supporter describing Saudi Arabia using the word "threat" says the threat Saudi Arabia poses to Israel is minimal.

Minimal, meaning the smallest amount possible.

You say Saudi Arabia is a threat. I get that. Nobody else does. Either you or everyone else is wrong.

"Actually, to say a threat is minimal is to say there is, in practical terms, no threat. That's kind of how the English language works."Actually the way of saying no threat is to say no threat, simple.

Again you requesting someone referring to sa as a threat and you got it arnold, you also got my link showing how israel thought sa was a hostile actor.